Part 17: (The Natural Slave?): Dialogues on a Philosophy for the Individual

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015)

With this post Flora Sapio and I (and friends from time to time) continue an experiment in collaborative dialogue. The object is to approach the issue of philosophical inquiry from another, and perhaps more fundamentally ancient, manner. We begin, with this post, to develop a philosophy for the individual that itself is grounded on the negation of the isolated self as a basis for thought, and for elaboration. This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts. Your participation is encouraged. For ease of reading Flora Sapio is identified as (FS), and Larry Catá Backer as (LCB).

The friends continue their discussion around the problem of natural slaves in which Betita Horn Pepulim (BHP) responds to Larry Catá Backer (LCB) and Flora Sapio (FS).  

Contents: HERE. 

(BHP) Olá Larry, Flora, Paul e agora Robert Mariott, em primeiro lugar quero dizer que eu adorei os exemplos do site e do zumbi que você deu Larry. Exemplos interessantes, os links foram bem pensados.

Quanto a resposta de Flora e o comentário de Larry, algumas vezes eu sinto como se nós estivéssemos rotulando a técnica do fazer e do viver, como se elas fossem alguma coisa estranha ao homem. Nesta perspectiva parece que o homem é entendido como um animal nu. Em essência, sim, no momento do nascimento, também, sim, mas a partir do momento em que ele começa a ter consciência de suas necessidades, de suas vontades e do mundo que ele habita, ele não está mais nu.

Eu penso que se tudo for encarado como artificial, aí sim o homem nada mais é do que um robô! Um site! Um zumbi!

Em relação as consequências de como nós nos comportamos, eu gosto muito deste pensamento de Edmund Couchot (1988 p.88)

“Somos condenados a reinventar nossa humanidade[...]”.

E a partir do que eu falei até agora, eu pergunto: Qual o sentido da vida se não é para se viver?

“O sentido da vida é estar vivo. É tão claro, tão óbvio e tão simples. Mesmo assim, todo mundo não para de correr em pânico, como se fosse necessário conseguir alguma coisa além de si próprio.”

Alan Watts

Para mim, "si próprio" inclui tudo, ser mestre e ser um escravo. É claro que, em certo sentido, somos todos escravos de algo ou alguém. Mas isso não é necessariamente ruim. Eu sou um escravo completo do mundo que eu habito. E eu amo a minha vida!! rsrsrssr

Por tudo isto é que eu gostei muito quando Paul citou Heidegger.

Heidegger viu na metafísica, o nascimento do pensamento dualista, expresso sempre por dicotomias.

Platão favoreceu a dicotomia do real-aparente. Já para os filósofos modernos, a dicotomia real-aparente parece que ganhou uma cobertura epistemológica que gerou a dicotomia sujeito-objeto. Na visão de Heidegger, o sujeito foi definido como o substrato, aquele que se submete a tudo, ele é capaz de gerar ele próprio o objeto.

O objeto, por definição, só é objeto para um sujeito. O sujeito representa em si próprio e em si próprio, o objeto. O homem é o sujeito, o objeto, e é o mundo. Tudo o que se faz no mundo se faz para o homem enquanto sujeito, ou melhor: o homem é o palco do mundo e, ao mesmo tempo, o legitimador de tudo que efetivamente existe. O homem, nesta perspectiva, é o fundamento de tudo. O que o homem produz para si mesmo, em seu próprio palco é o seu próprio mundo. Ou seja, o papel do homem é relacionar-se com o objeto. O mundo e o homem transformam-se em objetos, em algo manipulável. E o homem é o manipulador do homem.

Através da fenomenologia, Heidegger pretendia escapar deste mundo onde o nosso encontro com as coisas e com nós mesmos imediatamente nos converteria em manipuladores. Assim, o homem seria um dominador e um dominado, ao mesmo tempo. Heidegger propôs que o homem pode vir a perceber que a filosofia como epistemologia, a cultura como Humanismo e a ciência como tecnologia podem ser deixadas de lado. E que quando isto acontecer, o homem poderá voltar a conviver com o que ele perdeu: o ser, o que realmente existe , e não o que é representado.

Um aspecto importante para a sobrevivência de um indivíduo é a sua necessidade de construir uma identidade, um sentido de totalidade, este sentido leva o indivíduo a convergir em uma única imagem de si mesmo as muitas facetas do seu modo de ser, os diferentes personagens que ele representa em diferentes momentos da sua experiência social. Assim, alternadamente, o indivíduo é diferente e é o mesmo, em consonância com os vários grupos sociais do qual faz parte, tornando-se uma unidade contraditória, múltipla e mutável.

PS. Há comentários sobre Heidegger ser um pensador do nazismo. Eu não sei. Como minha origem é judaica, eu não gosto de nazistas. Mas como pesquisadora, eu gosto e eu preciso ler o que os pensadores tem a me oferecer. Com base nas ideias que considero lúcidas é que eu construo as minhas próprias ideias. Aristóteles era a favor da escravidão. Eu não. Nietzsche durante um tempo se dedicou a participar de orgias. Eu nunca fiz e nunca faria isto. Enfim, eu posso citar vários comportamentos controversos de filósofos cujos pensamentos serviram como base para o que conhecemos hoje como a história do pensamento humano. Mas eu acredito que este não é o caso.


Hello Larry, Flora, Paul and now Robert Mariott, first want to say that i loved the examples of the site and than zombie you gave Larry. Interesting examples, the links were well thought out.

As for Flora's response and to Larry's comment, sometimes i feel like we're labeling the technique of making and of living, as if they were a strange thing to man.

In this perspective it seems that man is understood as a naked animal.

In essence yes, at birth, also, yes, but from the moment he begins to be aware of their needs, of their wills and the world he inhabits, he's no longer naked.

I think if everything is seen as artificial, then yes, man is nothing more than a robot! A website! A zombie!

Regarding the consequences of our behavior, i like very this thought of Edmund Couchot (1988 p.88):

"We are condemned to reinvent our humanity [...]".

And starting from what i said hitherto, i ask: What is the meaning of life, if is not to live?

"The meaning of life is to be alive. It’s so clear, so obvious and so simple. Even so, everyone is constantly running in panic, as if it were necessary get something beyond itself.” Alan Watts.

For me, "himself" includes everything be master and be a slave. It is clear that in some sense we are all slaves to something or someone. But this is not necessarily bad. I am a complete slave of the world where i live. And i love my life !! rsrsrssr

For all this that i very liked when Paul quoted Heidegger.

Heidegger saw in metaphysics, the birth of dualistic thinking, always expressed by dichotomies.

Platão favored the dichotomy of real-apparent. As for modern philosophers the dichotomy , real-seeming, seems that won an epistemological coverage that generated the subject-object dichotomy. In Heidegger's view, the man( the subject) was defined as the substrate, one who submits to everything, he is able to generate itself the object.

The object, by definition,only is object for a man. The man is himself and for himself, the object. The man is the subject, and the object, and is the world.

Everything that is done in the world is made for man as a subject, or better: the man is the world stage and at the same time, he's the legitimizing of all that actually exists.

The man in this perspective is the foundation of everything.

The which the man produces for himself, in his own stage is its own world. That is, the man's role is to relate to the object. The world and man are transformed into objects, into something manageable. And the man is man's handler. Through phenomenology, Heidegger intended to escape from this world where the our meeting with things and with ourselves transform the man immediately in a handler immediately we would that us convert in manipulators. Thus, the man would be a domineering and a dominated, at the same time. Heidegger proposed that the man can come to realize that philosophy as epistemology, culture as humanism and science as technology can be left out. And that when this happens, the man can return to live with what he has lost: the being, what really exists, and not what is represented.

I once read an article in which the author said basically this, about the individual :

An important aspect for the survival of an individual is the yours needs to build an identity, a sense of wholeness, this one sense, leads the individual to converge in a single image of himself the many facets of his way of being, the different characters he uses, at different times of their social experience. Thus alternately, the individual is different and is the same, in line with the various social groups to which it belongs, thus becoming a contradictory, multiple and changeable unit.


PS. There are comments on Heidegger be a thinker of Nazism. I don't know. As my origin is Jewish, i do not like Nazis. But as a researcher, i like and i need to read what the thinkers has to offer me. Based on the ideas that I consider lucid is that i build the my own ideas. Aristotle was in favor of slavery. I did not. Nietzsche for a time. he devoted himself to participate the orgies. I never did and never would do it. So, i can cite several controversial behaviors of philosophers whose thoughts were the basis for what we know today as the history of human thought. But i believe that is not the case.

(LCB) A very strong set of responses, Betita.  I remain, however, worried that the dead hand of old philosophy continues to pull us down into the quagmire of classification, hierarchy, control and exploitation.   Each of the great men (and they were mostly men) who sought to imprint the mind of man (and perhaps some women. . . that was the age) with their elaboration of the reality of the universe in which they occupied space, all failed in that objective.  But they failed in that objective not because they got their philosophy wrong, but because each got their philosophy right.

What do I mean by that? I would suggest that each of these great philosophers constructed from out of their narrow universe of their grasping of "everything" a viable rendering of a priestly universe characterized by the foundational insight, the authoritative text, the invocation of ritual and the investing of a priestly caste to interpret and apply.  Each of these great men produced a uni-dimensional philosophy designed to put people in their place.  They constructed a philosophy in which "place" was well described--but more important, in which the land of taboo was described with even more precision.  And each anointed an overlord set to ensure the coherence of the place created,m the protection against the taboo and the privileged status of the priest.  All was bent to the reconstruction of the individual as useful pieces of a larger puzzle within which every person had a place, function and role. These are all philosophies of free will, free will bent to a larger purpose and overseen by the priestly class (priest, lawyer, politician, scholar, business leader and so on). Where the great philosopher focuses on interior reality, a similar result. The interior philosopher produces pietism and quietism--and obedience.  It implicitly recognizes the privilege of the premises of the individual imposed from beyond, and the residual nature of the individual true to self.  Even interior liberation is sometimes put to exterior political purpose.  Sartre is among the most popular of these liberationists--which I view as subjugation in a nicely packaged form for the consumption of the addicts of this therapeutic and narcissistic age.

But should the project of liberation account for something  more, something beyond the priest, the system, the hierarchy, the discipline of the communal individually applied.  This is the more difficult task, especially when undertaken int he shadow of the great philosophers and their bio-powered political objectives.  To that I will turn next.